Search

The article focuses on Paxlovid's effectiveness in nonhospitalized COVID-19 patients, highlighting uncertainties regarding its impact on mortality and hospitalization. It discusses concerns over virologic rebound and adverse effects like dysgeusia and gastrointestinal symptoms. It also discusses variations in trial populations and methodological rigor, underscoring the need for further conclusive data in assessing its overall benefit-risk profile.

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective. A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results. NMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (−0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (−$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. NMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective. • Oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is used to treat COVID-19 patients with high-risk factors for progression to severe disease. The cost-effectiveness of NMV/r and other outpatient antivirals have been evaluated in previous studies, including evaluations conducted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Review and Goswami and colleagues. • This study is the first to systematically evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r based on the effectiveness observed in a recent, Omicron-era US real-world population. This study provides cost-effectiveness estimates of NMV/r vs best supportive care using hospitalization outcomes, as well as several alternative scenarios, which include outpatient costs, impacts of post-COVID complications, and costs from the societal perspective. • The added cost and benefit were estimated to be $271 and 0.030 quality-adjusted life years per COVID-19-infected case, respectively. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $8931/quality-adjusted life year, well below typical US cost-effectiveness thresholds of $100 000 to $150 000. These findings can help US payers assess the value of reimbursing NMV/r to manage the health of COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: An appropriate economic evaluation of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) should consider the effectiveness of different regimens prescribed for patients. Studies have not evaluated the comparative effectiveness of different PEP antiretrovirals (ARVs) based on their costs. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of ARVs regimens used for PEP in Nigerian tertiary hospitals. Material and methods: This cross-sectional study collated patients' demographic and clinical data from PEP databases of United States' President Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief - AIDS Prevention Initiative in Nigeria hospitals. Costs of ARVs were obtained from donors' price list. Effectiveness was measured as the percentage of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative patients one-month post-PEP. Average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) were computed as the unit cost of the regimens/HIV infection averted (HIA). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted using 1,000 iterations using Monte-Carlo simulation. Results: Out of 575 patients identified, 198 (34.4%) had non-occupational exposure. Of the 14 regimens, tenofovir (TDF) + lamivudine (3TC) + ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATV/r) was prescribed for 230 (40.00%) patients. HIV-negative results were documented in 129 (22.4%) of the 185 patients with post-PEP test. Zidovudine (AZT) + 3TC + ATV-r was the most effective (95.5%, n = 63 of 66) regimen, while TDF + emtricitabine (FTC) + ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) was the most expensive ($23.66). With an ACER of $8.110/HIV infection prevented (95% CI: $8.052-$8.168), TDF + 3TC + efavirenz (EFV) was the most cost-effective regimen. Conclusions: AZT + 3TC + LPV/r was the most effective regimen, while TDF + FTC + ATV/r was the most expensive. However, TDF + 3TC + EFV combination was the most cost-effective regimen used in providing PEP service to HIV patients in Nigerian hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data on the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in pregnancy as compared with other ART regimens commonly used in the United States and Europe, particularly when initiated before conception, are limited.Methods: We conducted a study involving pregnancies in persons with HIV-1 infection in the Pediatric HIV/AIDS Cohort Study whose initial ART in pregnancy included dolutegravir, atazanavir-ritonavir, darunavir-ritonavir, oral rilpivirine, raltegravir, or elvitegravir-cobicistat. Viral suppression at delivery and the risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, and being small for gestational age were compared between each non-dolutegravir-based ART regimen and dolutegravir-based ART. Supplementary analyses that included participants in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study were conducted to improve the precision of our results.Results: Of the pregnancies in the study, 120 were in participants who received dolutegravir, 464 in those who received atazanavir-ritonavir, 185 in those who received darunavir-ritonavir, 243 in those who received rilpivirine, 86 in those who received raltegravir, and 159 in those who received elvitegravir-cobicistat. The median age at conception was 29 years; 51% of the pregnancies were in participants who started ART before conception. Viral suppression was present at delivery in 96.7% of the pregnancies in participants who received dolutegravir; corresponding percentages were 84.0% for atazanavir-ritonavir, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 89.8% for elvitegravir-cobicistat (adjusted risk differences vs. dolutegravir, -13.0 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, -17.0 to -6.1], -17.0 percentage points [95% CI, -27.0 to -2.4], and -7.0 percentage points [95% CI, -13.3 to -0.0], respectively). The observed risks of preterm birth were 13.6 to 17.6%. Adjusted risks of infants being born preterm, having low birth weight, or being small for gestational age did not differ substantially between non-dolutegravir-based ART and dolutegravir. Results of supplementary analyses were similar.Conclusions: Atazanavir-ritonavir and raltegravir were associated with less frequent viral suppression at delivery than dolutegravir. No clear differences in adverse birth outcomes were observed with dolutegravir-based ART as compared with non-dolutegravir-based ART, although samples were small. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) targeting hepatitis C virus (HCV) have revolutionized outcomes in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection.Methods: We examined early events in liver and plasma through A5335S, a substudy of trial A5329 (paritaprevir/ritonavir, ombitasvir, dasabuvir, with ribavirin) that enrolled chronic genotype 1a HCV-infected persons coinfected with suppressed HIV: 5 of 6 treatment-naive enrollees completed A5335S.Results: Mean baseline plasma HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) = 6.7 log10 IU/mL and changed by -4.1 log10 IU/mL by Day 7. In liver, laser capture microdissection was used to quantify HCV. At liver biopsy 1, mean %HCV-infected cells = 25.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4%-42.9%), correlating with plasma HCV RNA (Spearman rank correlation r = 0.9); at biopsy 2 (Day 7 in 4 of 5 participants), mean %HCV-infected cells = 1.0% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.7%) (P < .05 for change), and DAAs were detectable in liver. Plasma C-X-C motif chemokine 10 (CXCL10) concentrations changed by mean = -160 pg/mL per day at 24 hours, but no further after Day 4.Conclusions: We conclude that HCV infection is rapidly cleared from liver with DAA leaving <2% HCV-infected hepatocytes at Day 7. We extrapolate that HCV eradication could occur in these participants by 63 days, although immune activation might persist. Single-cell longitudinal estimates of HCV clearance from liver have never been reported previously and could be applied to estimating the minimum treatment duration required for HCV infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We evaluated the population-level benefits of expanding treatment with the antiviral drug Paxlovid (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) in the United States for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant infections. Using a multiscale mathematical model, we found that treating 20% of symptomatic case-patients with Paxlovid over a period of 300 days beginning in January 2022 resulted in life and cost savings. In a low-transmission scenario (effective reproduction number of 1.2), this approach could avert 0.28 million (95% CI 0.03-0.59 million) hospitalizations and save US $56.95 billion (95% CI US $2.62-$122.63 billion). In a higher transmission scenario (effective reproduction number of 3), the benefits increase, potentially preventing 0.85 million (95% CI 0.36-1.38 million) hospitalizations and saving US $170.17 billion (95% CI US $60.49-$286.14 billion). Our findings suggest that timely and widespread use of Paxlovid could be an effective and economical approach to mitigate the effects of COVID-19.

Nirmatrelvir is a potent and selective severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) main protease inhibitor. Nirmatrelvir co-packaged with ritonavir (as PAXLOVID) received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 22, 2021, as an oral treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and subsequent new drug application approval on May 25, 2023. Pharmacokinetic (PK) capillary blood sampling at-home using Tasso-M20 micro-volumetric sampling device was implemented in the program, including three phase II/III outpatient and several clinical pharmacology studies supporting the EUA. The at-home sampling complemented venous blood sampling procedures to enrich the PK dataset, to decrease the need for patients' site visit for PK sampling, and to allow different sampling approaches for flexibility and convenience. To demonstrate concordance/equivalence, bridging between venous plasma and Tasso dried blood results was conducted by comparing concentrations and derived PK parameters from both sampling approaches. In addition, a two-compartment population PK model was utilized to bridge the plasma and Tasso data by estimating the PK parameters using blood-to-plasma ratio as a slope parameter. Operational challenges were successfully managed to implement at-home PK sampling in global phase II/III trials. Sample quality was generally very good with less than 3% samples deemed as "not usable" from over 800 samples collected in all the studies. Experience gained from sites and patients will guide future broader implementations., (© 2023 Pfizer and Tasso Inc. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2023 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

In the fully vaccinated active duty Navy and Marine Corps population, the rate of hospitalization is 0.15% and assuming a similar RRR, the NNT in an active duty population to prevent one hospitalization would be 943. Dear Editor: Since 2020, the Department of Defense's contribution to the national fight against the COVID-19 pandemic has been commendable. According to Pfizer's press release, in standard risk patients, "0.7% of patients who received Paxlovid™ were hospitalized following randomization, compared to 2.4% of patients who received placebo.". [Extracted from the article]

Objective: A novel COVID-19 therapeutic, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid), is commonly associated with reports of dysgeusia. The Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database was used to determine the real-world reporting of Paxlovid-associated dysgeusia (PAD), identify associated factors, and describe the relative reporting rates of dysgeusia for Paxlovid compared to other COVID-19 therapeutics (OCT), ritonavir alone, and other protease inhibitors (OPI)., Study Design: Observational retrospective., Setting: Tertiary academic medical center., Methods: We collected patient and adverse event characteristics reported in the FAERS database between January 1968 and September 2022. Disproportionality analyses were used to compare the reporting of PAD to dysgeusia reported for OCT, ritonavir, and OPI., Results: 345,229 adverse events were included in the present study. Dysgeusia was a frequently reported Paxlovid-associated adverse event (17.5%) and was associated with nonserious COVID-19 infection (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 1.7) and female sex (ROR = 1.7; 95% CI 1.6, 1.9). Paxlovid was more likely to be associated with the reporting of dysgeusia compared to OCT (ROR 305.4; 95% CI 164.1, 568.5), ritonavir (ROR 28.0; 95% CI 24.1, 32.7), and OPI (ROR 49.0; 95% CI 42.8, 56.1)., Conclusion: Dysgeusia is much more likely to be reported by patients receiving Paxlovid than those receiving OCT, ritonavir alone, or OPI. These findings suggest a potential mechanism of dysgeusia that causes distorted taste out of proportion to the background effects of COVID-19 infection and specific to nirmatrelvir. Future studies are needed to determine the underlying pathophysiology and long-term clinical implications for patients who report dysgeusia with Paxlovid., (© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.)

Purpose: The evolving epidemiology and treatment landscape of COVID-19 necessitates research into potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) from the use of new treatments for COVID-19, particularly those that contain ritonavir, a potent inhibitor of the cytochrome P350 3A4 (CYP3A4) metabolic pathway. In this study, we assessed the prevalence of pDDIs between medications for chronic conditions metabolized through the CYP3A4 metabolic pathway and ritonavir-containing COVID-19 medications in the US general population., Methods: This study combined National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) waves 2015 to 2016 and 2017 to March 2020 to observe pDDI prevalence between ritonavir-containing therapy and coadministered medications among US adults 18 years or older. CYP3A4-mediated medications were identified from affirmative medication questionnaire response and associated prescription examination by surveyors. CYP3A4-mediated medications with associated pDDIs with ritonavir and assessed pDDI severity (minor, major, moderate, and severe) were obtained from the University of Liverpool's COVID-19 online drug interaction checker, Lexicomp, and US Food and Drug Administration fact sheets. pDDI prevalence and severity were evaluated by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 risk factors., Findings: A total of 15,685 adult participants were identified during the 2015 to 2020 NHANES waves. Survey participants used a mean (SD) of 2.7 (1.8) drugs with likelihood of a pDDI. The weighted prevalence of major to contraindicated pDDIs among the US population was 29.3%. Prevalence rates among those 60 years and older, with serious heart conditions, with moderate chronic kidney disease (CKD), with severe CKD, with diabetes, and with HIV were 60.2%, 80.7%, 73.9%, 69.5%, 63.4%, and 68.5%, respectively. Results remained largely unchanged after removal of statins from the list of drugs associated with ritonavir-based pDDIs., Implications: Approximately one-third of the US population would be at risk for a major or contraindicated pDDI should they receive a ritonavir-containing regimen, and this risk increases significantly among individuals 60 years or older and with comorbidities such as serious heart conditions, CKD, diabetes, and HIV. The state of polypharmacy in the US population and the quickly changing COVID-19 landscape indicate significant risk of pDDIs among those requiring treatment with ritonavir-containing COVID-19 medications. Practitioners should take polypharmacy, age, and comorbidity profile into account when prescribing COVID-19 therapies. Alternative treatment regimens should be considered, especially for those of older age and those with risk factors for progression to severe COVID-19., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: New treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) are highly effective in patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of treatments for genotype 1 (GT1) HCV in HIV-coinfected patients.Methods: A Markov model based on HCV natural history was used. The base-case analysis included both treatment-naïve and -experienced patients. Alternatives were ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir, dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (3D ± R) for 12 or 24 weeks, sofosbuvir plus peginterferon and R (SOF + PR) for 12 weeks, SOF + R for 24 weeks, and no treatment (NT). A subgroup analysis restricted to treatment-naïve, non-cirrhotic patients compared 3D ± R for 12 weeks to SOF plus ledipasvir (LDV) for 12 weeks and NT. Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were measured over a lifetime horizon and included rates of compensated cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver-related death, total costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: In the base-case, SOF + R was dominated by both SOF + PR and 3D ± R. Compared to SOF + PR, 3D ± R had an ICER of $45,581. The lifetime rates of liver morbidity and mortality were lower among those treated with 3D ± R compared to SOF + PR, SOF + R, or NT. In the subgroup analysis, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT at a threshold of $50,000 per QALY (ICER $27,496). SOF/LDV had an ICER of $104,489 per QALY gained compared to 3D ± R.Conclusion: In the GT1 HCV population coinfected with HIV, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT, SOF + R, and SOF + PR. In the treatment-naïve sub-population, 3D ± R was cost-effective compared to NT and SOF/LDV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At a crucial time with rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant globally, the United States Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency use authorization for 2 oral antivirals, molnupiravir (in persons aged ≥18 years) and nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) (in persons aged ≥12 years weighing ≥40 kg), for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at risk for progression. Molnupiravir is a nucleoside analogue, whereas nirmatrelvir is a SARS-CoV-2 main protease inhibitor, and ritonavir is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor. Drug interactions are a major concern for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir. Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir demonstrated a greater risk reduction in hospitalization and death than molnupiravir compared to placebo. Both drugs need to be started within 5 days of symptoms onset and given for 5 days' duration. This article reviews the 2 oral COVID-19 antiviral drugs including the mechanisms of action, antiviral activity, pharmacokinetics, drug interactions, clinical experience including trials, adverse events, recommended indications, and formulary considerations., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. D. S. reports an unpaid leadership role or fiduciary role on the American College of Physicians Michigan Chapter Program Planning Committee and is chair of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Journal of Infectious Disease search committee. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

On December 22, 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The drug is authorized for use in patients 12 years of age and older weighing at least 40 kg who have tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19. Nirmatrelvir, an orally bioavailable protease inhibitor that prevents SARS-CoV-2 replication by cleaving the two viral polyproteins, is packaged with ritonavir, a cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 inhibitor and pharmacokinetic boosting agent that increases nirmatrelvir concentrations. Although Paxlovid has demonstrated clinical efficacy in unvaccinated patients with COVID-19, its role in the treatment of other populations is less clear. This manuscript reviews what is known about Paxlovid and explores how this drug may be used in the future to treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection., (Copyright 2022 Clarivate.)

Equitable access to COVID-19 therapeutics is a critical aspect of the distribution program led by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).* Two oral antiviral products, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) † and molnupiravir (Lagevrio), § received emergency use authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021, to reduce the risk for COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death for those patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 who are at higher risk for severe illness (1,2). HHS has been distributing these medications at no cost to recipients since their authorization. Data collected from provider sites during December 23, 2021-May 21, 2022, indicated substantial disparities in the population-adjusted dispensing rates in high social vulnerability (high-vulnerability) zip codes compared with those in medium- and low-vulnerability zip codes (3). Specifically, dispensing rates for the 4-week period during April 24-May 21, 2022, were 122 per 100,000 residents (19% of overall population-adjusted dispensing rates) in high-vulnerability zip codes compared with 247 (42%) in medium-vulnerability and 274 (39%) in low-vulnerability zip codes. This report provides an updated analysis of dispensing rates by zip code-level social vulnerability and highlights important intervention strategies., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a pandemic in many countries around the world. The virus is highly contagious and has a high fatality rate. Lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) patients may have higher susceptibility and mortality to COVID-19. While Paxlovid is the first oral drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for COVID-19, its specific drug mechanism for lung cancer patients infected with COVID-19 remains to be further studied., Methods: COVID-19 related genes were obtained from NCBI, GeneCards, and KEGG, and then the transcriptome data for LUAD was downloaded from TCGA. The drug targets of Paxlovid were revealed through BATMAN-TCM, DrugBank, SwissTargetPrediction, and TargetNet. The genes related to susceptibility to COVID-19 in LUAD patients were obtained through differential analysis. The interaction of LUAD/COVID-19 related genes was evaluated and displayed by STRING, and a COX risk regression model was established to screen and evaluate the correlation between genes and clinical characteristics. The Venn diagram was drawn to select the candidate targets of Paxlovid against LUAD/COVID-19, and the functional analysis of the target genes was performed using KEGG and GO enrichment analysis. Finally, Cytoscape was used to screen and visualize the Hub Gene, and Autodock was used for molecular docking between the drug and the target., Result: Bioinformatics analysis was performed by combining COVID-19-related genes with the gene expression and clinical data of LUAD, including analysis of prognosis-related genes, survival rate, and hub genes screened out by the prognosis model. The key targets of Paxlovid against LUAD/COVID-19 were obtained through network pharmacology, the most important targets include IL6, IL12B, LBP. Furthermore, pathway analysis showed that Paxlovid modulates the IL-17 signaling pathway, the cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction, during LUAD/COVID-19 treatment., Conclusions: Based on bioinformatics and network pharmacology, the prognostic signature of LUAD/COVID-19 patients was screened. And identified the potential therapeutic targets and molecular pathways of Paxlovid Paxlovid in the treatment of LUAD/COVID. As promising features, prognostic signatures and therapeutic targets shed light on improving the personalized management of patients with LUAD., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Zhang, Yang, Zhou, Wei and Ma.)

Pharmaceutical manufacturers rely on patents to protect their intellectual property and often seek to extend market exclusivity for their products to maximize their return on investment. One method is by obtaining patents on features other than the original active drug ingredient, including secondary patents on alternate formulations of the drug or on methods of administration. This article examines how secondary patents can extend market exclusivity and thus delay generic competition, using as an example two key antiretroviral drugs for the management of HIV: ritonavir (Norvir) and lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra). We identified 108 patents, which together could delay generic competition until at least 2028-twelve years after the expiration of the patents on the drugs' base compounds and thirty-nine years after the first patents on ritonavir were filed. Some of the secondary patents that were reviewed were found to be of questionable inventiveness. We argue that increased transparency for existing patents, stricter patentability standards, and increased opportunities to challenge patent applications and patents could reduce inappropriate market exclusivity extensions on brand-name drugs and open the door to lower-cost generics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose. The most current guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on the management of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in treatment-naive patients are reviewed. Summary. Treatment guidelines are updated frequently because of the emergence of data demonstrating the risks and benefits of antiretroviral therapy. The DHHS guidelines strongly recommend initiating therapy in patients with certain conditions regardless of CD4 cell count and in patients with CD4 cell counts of <350 cells/mm3. Although supporting data are less definitive, treatment is also recommended for patients with CD4 cell counts of 350-500 cells/mm3. Treatment for patients with CD4 cell counts of >500 cells/ mm3 is controversial. Although cumulative observational data and biological evidence support treatment at higher CD4 cell counts, randomized controlled trial data to support this are not available, and the risk of antiretroviral toxicities, resistance, nonadherence, and cost should be considered in individual patients. The preferred regimens have been consolidated to four options, including a dual-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone (tenofovir plus emtricitabine) with a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (efavirenz), a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (atazanavir plus ritonavir or darunavir plus ritonavir), or an integrase strand-transfer inhibitor (raltegravir). Regimens are classified as alternative or acceptable when they have potential safety or efficacy concerns, have higher pill burdens, or require more frequent administration compared with preferred regimens. Conclusion. The DHHS 2011 guidelines advocate earlier antiretroviral therapy initiation than recommended in recent years, and preferred regimens have been refined to maximize efficacy, safety, and quality of life for treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on cobicistat, a drug intended for pharmacokinetic augmentation in antiretroviral treatment. Cobicistat is similar to the drug ritonavir in structure; and according to pharmacokinetic studies, Cytochrome-P450 (CYP)3A inhibition and antiretroviral augmentation are similar by cobicistat and ritonavir. Cobicistat has been approved for clinical use in the U.S.

In December 2019, a novel SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus emerged, causing an outbreak of life-threatening pneumonia in the Hubei province, China, and has now spread worldwide, causing a pandemic. The urgent need to control the disease, combined with the lack of specific and effective treatment modalities, call for the use of FDA-approved agents that have shown efficacy against similar pathogens. Chloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir/ritonavir or ribavirin have all been successful in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. The initial results of a number of clinical trials involving various protocols of administration of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine mostly point towards their beneficial effect. However, they may not be effective in cases with persistently high viremia, while results on ivermectin (another antiparasitic agent) are not yet available. Interestingly, azithromycin, a macrolide antibiotic in combination with hydroxychloroquine, might yield clinical benefit as an adjunctive. The results of clinical trials point to the potential clinical efficacy of antivirals, especially remdesivir (GS-5734), lopinavir/ritonavir, and favipiravir. Other therapeutic options that are being explored involve meplazumab, tocilizumab, and interferon type 1. We discuss a number of other drugs that are currently in clinical trials, whose results are not yet available, and in various instances we enrich such efficacy analysis by invoking historic data on the treatment of SARS, MERS, influenza, or in vitro studies. Meanwhile, scientists worldwide are seeking to discover novel drugs that take advantage of the molecular structure of the virus, its intracellular life cycle that probably elucidates unfolded-protein response, as well as its mechanism of surface binding and cell invasion, like angiotensin converting enzymes-, HR1, and metalloproteinase inhibitors., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The regulatory prohibition of ketoconazole as a CYP3A index inhibitor in drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies has compelled consideration of alternative inhibitors., Methods: The biomedical literature was searched to identify DDI studies in which oral midazolam (MDZ) was the victim, and the inhibitory perpetrator was either ketoconazole, itraconazole, clarithromycin, or ritonavir. The ratios (RAUC ) of total area under the curve (AUC) for MDZ with inhibitor divided by MDZ AUC in the control condition were aggregated across individual studies for each inhibitor., Results: Mean (± SE) RAUC values were: ketoconazole (15 studies, 131 subjects), 11.5 (±1.2); itraconazole (five studies, 48 subjects), 7.3 (±1.0); clarithromycin (five studies, 73 subjects), 6.5 (±10.9); and ritonavir (13 studies, 159 subjects), 14.5 (±2.0). Differences among inhibitors were significant (F = 5.31, P < 0.005). RAUC values were not significantly related to inhibitor dosage or to duration of inhibitor pre-exposure prior to administration of MDZ., Conclusions: Ritonavir produces CYP3A inhibition equivalent to or greater than ketoconazole, and is the best index CYP3A inhibitor alternative to ketoconazole. Cobicistat closely resembles ritonavir in structure and function, and can also be considered. Itraconazole and clarithromycin are not suitable alternatives since they do not produce inhibition comparable with ketoconazole or ritonavir, and have other significant disadvantages as well., (© 2015 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Reports on the critics of Abbott Laboratories' price hike of ritonavir. Anger felt by AIDS activists and organizations as well as physicians and politicians; Claim by Abbott Laboratories that ritonavir is still one of the lowest cost components of HIV therapy; Report that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation filed an antitrust and restraint of trade lawsuit against Abbott; Boycott of Abbott products by physicians.